On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:22 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > am I wrong or one can have foo.png in foo.desktop, and foo.xpm in
> > foo.menu? If upstream does not provide an xpm icon, the "convert"
> > command of the imagemagick package can easily create one at build time.
>
> My point is that I shouldn't have to maintain both, or to run convert
> each time this is necessary.
Unless I'm confused, this is what makefiles are for. How much trouble
is it to set it up, which must only be done once?
> "Reinventing the wheel" was perhaps not the best way to describe the
> problem; I wanted to point out that the Debian meny system has
> antediluvian requirements and duplicates the functionality of the GNOME
> menu for me. I suggested the Debian menu system would handle or import
> the data from the .desktop files instead of requiring me to do it
> manually.
This does not excuse you, as a Debian maintainer, from conforming to the
Debian menu policy, which is designed for more than just GNOME. I agree
completely that something better could be found to integrate them, but
that's not at all the same question. A Debian maintainer's job is *not*
just to package things the way upstream normally does, and refuse to do
anything more.
> No, but in some use cases they are mutually exclusive. The Debian menu
> system is completely useless to me, and I expect to most GNOME and KDE
> users. I'm not saying we should drop it since I can't claim it's
> useless for everybody. I am saying that the fact it is useless to me
> and to most of the users of the GNOME packages I maintain doesn't call
> for a good maintenance of the menu entries of these packages; and I am
> proposing technical ways to solve this.
Supposedly a gnome program will run under KDE. Right?
How will a KDE user find it, if not through the Debian menu system?
Thomas

Attachment:
signature.ascDescription: This is a digitally signed message part